Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vibha Gupta And Others vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 11 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:199341
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 328 of 2018
Smt. Vibha Gupta And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
B. Narayan Singh, H.N. Singh, Vineet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Mohan Srivastava, Vashistha Tiwari
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Gorakhpur in M.A.C.P. No.757 of 2005 (Smt. Vibha Gupta and others vs. Rajesh Kumar Yadav and others), whereby for the untimely death of Arun Kumar, in a motor accident that occurred on 05.11.2005, a compensation of Rs.3,42,500/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded to the claimants, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle No.UP-52-F-1002.
2. Since, no cross-appeal has been filed by the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle, as such, the factum of accident and negligence of the offending vehicle is not disputed by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the deceased Arun Kumar was a bachelor and aged about 20 years at the time of the accident, who was working with Sahara India, Gorakhpur in Nausar Branch as Senior Motivator and was earning about Rs.60,000/- per annum towards commission. He further submitted that the deceased was also supplying stationery and was earning about Rs.60,000/- per year and was also an agent of LIC earning about Rs.84,000/- per year, as commission. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was an income tax assessee, who had filed Income Tax Return for the financial years 2004-2005 (assessment year 2005-2006), in which he had disclosed his annual income at Rs.83,780/-, on which no income tax was paid because it was within the taxable limit, as per the rebate available under the Income Tax Act. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the above Income Tax Return of the deceased, his income was liable to be assessed on that basis, but the Tribunal has ignored that evidence and has assessed the annual income of the deceased as only Rs.36,000/-, which is erroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that no future prospects were awarded to the claimants, less amount was awarded towards consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and interest. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has only assessed compensation by applying multiplier of 14 whereas since the deceased was only about 20 years old, a multiplier of 18 was to be applied for determining the compensation.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the case law of Shashikala and others vs. Gangalakshmamma and Another (2015) 9 SCC 150, Smt. Sunita Yadav and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2018 (1) ADJ 694 (DB) and Mohd. Haneef and others vs. U.P.S.R.T.C., 2018 (2) ADJ 605 (DB).
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- insurance company has submitted that since the deceased was bachelor, one half amount is required to be deducted towards his self expenses and the Tribunal has awarded the right amount of compensation.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial court.
7. The claimants claimed that the deceased was an L.I.C. agent, who was getting commission of Rs.84,000/- annually. Besides that, he was also a Senior Motivator in Sahara India, Nausar Branch, Gorakhpur and earning Rs.60,000/- annually as commission. The deceased was also supplying stationery and was earning Rs.60,000/- per year. According to the claimants, they were dependent on the income of the deceased, who was a bachelor at the time of the accident and was aged about 20 years.
8. In support of the above contention, the claimants have examined PW-5 Maksoodan Singh, who was working as Assistant in the office of Additional Income Tax Commissioner, Gorakhpur, who deposed that the deceased had filed the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2005-2006, in which he had disclosed his taxable income as Rs.83,780/-. He admitted that according to the Income Tax Return, the deceased was having income as a commission agent of L.I.C.
9. The claimants also examined Tilak Dhari Prasad (PW-4) an official working in the National Insurance Company Limited, who has proved that the deceased was running a firm M/s. Arun Traders, who was doing stationery business. The claimants have also examined Rajeev Kumar Srivastava as PW-6, who has deposed that the deceased was working as Senior Motivator in the Nausar Branch of Sahara India Limited at Gorakhpur and was having income from commission. Besides the above oral evidence, the claimants have filed documentary evidence to prove that Arun Kumar was working with Sahara India Limited, Nausar Branch, Gorakhpur as Senior Motivator. The sales tax registration of M/s. Arun Traders, Gorakhpur has also been filed for the period 2003-2004 till 2007-2008 . The saral Income Tax Return form for the financial year 2004-2005 has also been filed, which discloses that the taxable income of the deceased was Rs.83,780/-, on which income tax of Rs.5,756/- was payable but the same amount of rebate was available under the Income Tax Act, as such, no income tax was paid by the deceased. This return has been filed on 31.07.2005, which is before the death of the deceased in a road accident that occurred on 05.11.2005. The statement of Life Insurance Corporation of India has been filed, which discloses that Arun Kumar was having income from commission as an agent of the company. All these documentary and oral evidence prove that the deceased was working as a motivator with Sahara India Limited, was also an agent of the L.I.C. of India and also running a stationery business, who had filed the Income Tax Return for the financial year 2004-2005, in which he had disclosed his taxable income from all sources at Rs.83,780/- on which no income tax was payable, as per rebate available under the Income Tax Act. In view of this, the Tribunal has erred by awarding the compensation to the claimants on the basis that the deceased was only having income of Rs.36,000/- annually, which is erroneous. The claimants are entitled to get compensation on the basis of the above Income Tax Return filed by the deceased before his death, which discloses that he was having an annual income of Rs.83,780/-.
10. As per decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi & ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680 read with Rule 220-A of UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998, the claimants are also entitled to get compensation on future prospects @ 50% since the deceased was below 40 years of age.
11. As per decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), since the age of the deceased was about 20 years at the time of the accident, the claimants are entitled to get compensation by applying multiplier of 18 but the Tribunal has only awarded compensation by applying multiplier of 14, which is erroneous.
12. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & others (2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimants are entitled to loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each which is to be increased by 10% after every three years.
13. It is also apparent that as per Rule 220-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants are entitled to get interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, but the Tribunal has awarded interest only @ 6% per annum, which needs to be enhanced by this Court accordingly.
14. A Division Bench of this Court in FAFO No.2581 of 2011, Sushil Kumar & Another vs. M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another, decided on 26.04.2017 has held that even if the accident occurred prior to 26.09.2011, the claimants are entitled to compensation on future prospects as per amended Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, since it is a beneficial legislation.
15. In view of the above legal position, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation, which is redetermined as under:-
S.No.
Compensation Heads
Amount Awarded in Rs.
In Accordance with.
1.
Annual Income of deceased
83,780/-
-
2.
Less 1/2 deduction towards self expenses(since deceased was bachelor)
41,890/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
3.
Net annual income on which claimants were dependent
41,890/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
4.
Add future prospects @50% since deceased was aged less than 40 years
20,945/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
5.
Total annual dependency of claimants on deceased
62,835/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
6.
Multiplier applied since age of deceased was about 20 years
Pranay Sethi(supra)
7.
Total loss of dependency to the claimants
62835x18=11,31,030/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
8.
Loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/-each, increased by 10% after every 3 years
(5 claimants)
48,400/- x 5
= 2,42,000/-
Pranay Sethi(supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra)
9.
Loss of estate @ Rs.15,000/- increased by 10% after every 3 years.
18,150/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
10.
Funeral Expenses@ Rs.15,000/- increased by 10% after every 3 years.
18,150/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
11.
Total compensation
14,09,330/-
16. In this way, the claimants are entitled to get enhanced total compensation of Rs.14,09,330/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till it?s actual payment.
17. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the tribunal is modified to the above extent.
18. If any amount has been paid by the insurance company previously, then the insurance company is entitled to adjust it accordingly. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned tribunal within one month. The tribunal will be at liberty to proportionally award the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants, keeping in view their age and dependency.
19. The original record of the lower court be sent back, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
November 11, 2025
Jitendra
